The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31033 of 2021 Sri Malaya Kumar Lenka State of Odisha and others -versus- …. Petitioner Mrs. S. Jena, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Mohanty, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER 29.11.2024 Order No. 06. 1. Heard Mrs. S. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well
Legal Reasoning
as Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. 2. The Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Live Stock Inspector pursuant to the advertisement issued on 16.1.2004. The recruitment process pursuant to the said advertisement could not be taken up due to filing of litigations and interim orders passed therein. However, disputes were settled by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different cases. Then without any process of selection initiated pursuant to said advertisement of the year 2004, subsequent advertisement was issued on 30.7.2021 for filling up 565 posts of Live Stock Inspectors. The Petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.25436 of 2021 praying to give him appointment as the Live Stock Inspector since in the meantime he was over- aged to apply under the advertisement of the year 2021. This Court by order dated 25.08.2021 in W.P.(C) No.25436 of 2021, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2024 12:09:50 Page 1 of 5 directed the authorities to consider all such facts and to pass a reasoned order expeditiously. 3. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the authorities then passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 under Annexure-11 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector. The authority also rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for relaxation of upper age limit for recruitment to the post f Live Stock Inspector. 4. State has filed its counter reiterating their stand taken in the impugned order that, the Petitioner cannot be given appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector now, after the advertisement of the year 2021. 5. Mrs. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, one candidate, namely, Sarita Yadav, who was also an applicant pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004, has been appointed as a Live Stock Inspector by the authorities, who stands on similar footing with present Petitioner. However, no material could be produced on record by the Petitioner in support of her contention regarding appointment of said Sarita Yadav, except copy of order dated 13.2.2019 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) under Annexure-13, wherein a direction was given to consider her representation. 6. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not an applicant pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2021, but he seeks appointment as such Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2024 12:09:50 Page 2 of 5 based on his application made pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004. It is true that, no selection process would be taken up in respect of the advertisement of the year 2004 and no such candidate under the said advertisement was given appointment. It is also true that, the Petitioner did not face the selection process pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004 though invitation letter was sent to face the interview. 7. Now the Petitioner is claiming for his appointment as Live Stock Inspector putting the entire blame on the Sate-Opposite Parties for not completing the process of recruitment pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004, thereby making the Petitioner age barred in respect of the next advertisement, i.e. of the year 2021. The selection process for recruitment to the Live Stock Inspector is governed by Odisha Non-Gazetted Veterinary Technical Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1983 (in short, ‘1983 Rules’) amended from time to time. So the claim of the Petitioner to be appointed as Live Stock Inspector without facing the selection process or without participating in the recruitment process is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Petitioner’s claim is entirely based upon the fact that though he had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement of the year 2004, but his case was not taken up for the recruitment process without any fault on his part. This submission advanced by the Petitioner is not found convincing for the reason that no appointment can be made violating the procedure of recruitment and selection prescribed under the rules. A detailed procedure has been prescribed for recruitment to the post of Live Stock Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2024 12:09:50 Page 3 of 5 Inspector under the 1983 Rules. Therefore, the Petitioner has no right to be appointed as such without being a part of the recruitment and selection process in accordance with the rules. 8. However, the contention of the Petitioner that, he became over- aged without his fault to be eligible under the advertisement of the year 2021, is a matter of consideration. Though in the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 under Annexure-11, it is mentioned that, the age relaxation to appear in the recruitment of Live Stock Inspector is not permissible as per Odisha Group-‘C’ Veterinary Technical Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Amendment Rules (L.I.), 2019, but upon perusal of the Amendment Rule of 2019, it does not reveal so. By way of amendment in 2019, Rule 21 was inserted to 1983 Rules giving power of relaxation to the Government for appropriate reasons to be recorded. Rule 21 of the said Rules reads as follows:- “21.Relaxation. – When it is considered by the Government that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any provision of these rules in respect of any class or category of the employees”. 9. Therefore, it is clear from bare reading of the aforesaid provision that, the authority is not devoid of power of relaxation in respect of age of a candidate. So considering the fact that the Petitioner applied under the advertisement of the year 2004, but could not take part in the selection process without his fault, and subsequently he became age barred as per advertisement of the year 2021, the authorities are directed to consider his case for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2024 12:09:50 Page 4 of 5 participating in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2021, subject to the condition that he qualifies in all other respects. The Opposite Parties are directed to take a decision accordingly within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. It needs to be mentioned here that, this Court by interim order dated 29.03.2022 has directed for keeping one post vacant from the advertised of 565 posts. 11. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( B.P. Routray) B.K. Barik Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2024 12:09:50 Page 5 of 5